locked
Disk performance is TERRIBLE -- Vail is unuseable RRS feed

  • Question

  • I did a search and didn't find anything so I thought I'd post.  I've setup a Vail server using reasonably powerful equipment.  The first release of Vail worked reasonably well, but the refresh has such I/O performance issues that it is unusable.

    Specs:
    Dell XPS 410
    Core 2 Quad Q6600
    Five internal drives
      4x 750GB Sata 150 Drives
      1x 2000GB Sata 300 Drives

    Lots of free space (1.5TB), but lots of files, mostly movies and pictures.   Copying to Vail is so slow as to be unusable (from any source, another local drive, an eSata drive, a USB drive, another networked machine).  We're talking 200Kb/Second.  K, not M.

    Each drive tests fine with HDTune.  Roughly 75-80MB/Sec on the Sata150 drives and 150+ on the Sata300 drives.

    Using one of the shares from another machine (connected via gigabit) is unusable too, so it isn't just read performance.  Loading a 100kb JPG can take minutes.

    Ive checked the obvious, such as all the drives running in UDMA6.  All drives are on in the BIOS (a possible issue with a Dell).  I upgraded from 2GB of Ram to 6GB thinking it was the problem.

    I was surprised that VAIL takes almost 3GB of RAM just to boot.  Seems ridiculous.

    Thoughts?  Close to giving up, which is too bad as I was going to be first in line to purchase. V1 has been great for me!

    Tom

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:12 AM

Answers

  • All I can really tell you for sure from here is that the performance you're seeing is anomalous. I get around 18-20 MB/s copying to Vail. It could be hardware, (including firmware and drivers), for example... Are you using Advanced Format drives without aligning the partitions?

    Have you filed a bug report on Connect?


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:31 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Have you checked folder duplication and shadow copy. 

    I too was uphappy with the speed of Vail under similar circumstances and I thought I read somewhere in the forums that having the OS on a drive outside of the storage pool would increase the OS speed.  What I actually discovered was that only having shadow copy and folder duplication on the folders that actually need it increased my speed the most.

     

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:39 AM
  • This sounds like a network issue; My Vail server is much less powerful and delivers good performance.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:08 AM
    Moderator
  • Have you checked folder duplication and shadow copy. 

    I too was uphappy with the speed of Vail under similar circumstances and I thought I read somewhere in the forums that having the OS on a drive outside of the storage pool would increase the OS speed.  What I actually discovered was that only having shadow copy and folder duplication on the folders that actually need it increased my speed the most.

     


    Sorry, didn't make that clear.  Shadow Copy is turned off and there is NO folder duplication on the system.  I also turned off Windows Indexing.
    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:21 AM
  • This sounds like a network issue; My Vail server is much less powerful and delivers good performance.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    I guess I didn't make that clear either.  Performance is terrible regardless of the source of the files I am copying to Vail.  From the network is actually a little faster.  I've copied from network shares, from a USB2 drive connected locally to the Vail system, from a drive connected locally through eSata and from a drive connected locally thru SATA.


    ALL are terrible.  Unuseable.

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:22 AM
  • All I can really tell you for sure from here is that the performance you're seeing is anomalous. I get around 18-20 MB/s copying to Vail. It could be hardware, (including firmware and drivers), for example... Are you using Advanced Format drives without aligning the partitions?

    Have you filed a bug report on Connect?


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:31 PM
    Moderator
  • All I can really tell you for sure from here is that the performance you're seeing is anomalous. I get around 18-20 MB/s copying to Vail. It could be hardware, (including firmware and drivers), for example... Are you using Advanced Format drives without aligning the partitions?

    Have you filed a bug report on Connect?


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    I have not and will if I can't clear it up.  To be honest, my confidence in the SATA150 drives is low, and one of them was the boot drive.  I'm going to rebuild with the 2TB Sata300 as the boot drive and try again.  My prior Vail build was great.

    If that fails, I'll file a report.

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 6:25 PM
  • Ken, I am getting around 18-20 MB/s copying to Vail also.  I'm using WD green 500G as system, and 2 WD green 2TB EARS as storage pool drives.  I have not aligned the partitions on the EARS drives.

    I'm not happy with the 18-20 MB/s copying speed because in WHS v1 I get 89-98 MB/s.  In the WHS v1 system I'm using WD green 500G as system, 3 WD green 1TB EADS and 1 WD 2TB EADS drives.

    Both systems using NVIDIA 8200 chipsets, and both systems using nForce serial ATA controller.  I think the 18-20 MB/s is pitiful compared too the 89-98 MB/s.  Is it unreasonable of me to expect Vail to perform similar to WHS v1?

    Your thoughts....??

    Thank you,

    Rue

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 7:14 PM
  • My thought is that your V1 transfer rate is unreasonably high. It represents better than 90% utilization of gigabit ethernet. While this isn't impossible if you tune everything in the chain, it's really very unlikely, and not at all easy to do in a home environment. Having (somehow) achieved that with V1, you have unreasonably high expectations.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:58 AM
    Moderator
  • I guess I just got lucky with my WHS v1 build.  Only thing out of the ordinary I did on that build was slipstream my drivers onto an install dvd.  I guess the big disappointment for me is in real world numbers. A 20 gig file that I can upload from my client PC over the network to my WHS v1 in 15-20 minutes now takes 1 hour to 1 hour and 15 minutes to upload from the same client PC to my Vail server.

    Guess I'll stick with my WHS v1 for now.  Adding 1 hour to my upload times is not acceptable to me.  Unfortunately, my expectations were set by the perfomance of my WHS v1.  I was unaware that these transfer rates were that extraordinary.  That is just the way it has worked for me from the trial version of WHS v1 through my full blown install from the slipstreamed retail disc.

    I just dabble in this stuff as kind of a hobby, and I may be showing my ignorance here.  But, I thought that 100 MB/s would represent 10% utilization of a gigabit ethernet.  And I'm seeing something slightly less than that from my WHS v1 (89-98 MB/s).  I did not find this to be unreasonably high based on that.

    Anyway, I respect your opinion and would appriciate your thoughts further.....

    Thank you,

    Rue

    Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:31 AM
  • I guess I just got lucky with my WHS v1 build.  Only thing out of the ordinary I did on that build was slipstream my drivers onto an install dvd.  I guess the big disappointment for me is in real world numbers. A 20 gig file that I can upload from my client PC over the network to my WHS v1 in 15-20 minutes now takes 1 hour to 1 hour and 15 minutes to upload from the same client PC to my Vail server.

    Guess I'll stick with my WHS v1 for now.  Adding 1 hour to my upload times is not acceptable to me.  Unfortunately, my expectations were set by the perfomance of my WHS v1.  I was unaware that these transfer rates were that extraordinary.  That is just the way it has worked for me from the trial version of WHS v1 through my full blown install from the slipstreamed retail disc.

    I just dabble in this stuff as kind of a hobby, and I may be showing my ignorance here.  But, I thought that 100 MB/s would represent 10% utilization of a gigabit ethernet. 

    No, 100 MB/sec (note the capital B, which is bytes) is 80% of a gigabit network (8 bits in a byte).

    And I'm seeing something slightly less than that from my WHS v1 (89-98 MB/s).  I did not find this to be unreasonably high based on that.

    Anyway, I respect your opinion and would appriciate your thoughts further.....

    Thank you,

    Rue

    I'm curious, did you do any kind of network tweaking with v1?  How are you determining your transfer speed?  Can you post a screen shot of your transfer speed to a pic-hosting website, then post a link to it here?
    Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:41 AM
    Moderator
  • No network tweaking that I know of.  Determining transfer speed by clicking on the "more details" drop down arrow of my copying dialog box.  Also, it takes roughly 10 minutes to copy the file to WHS v1, and nearly 1 hour to copy the same file from the same client over the same network to my Vail server.

    Eventually I can post screen shot.  Never linked to a pic-hosting site before.  After I figure out what I need to do to accomplish this, I will do it.

    In a nut shell here is what it says:

    Copying 3 items (22.5 GB)

    Name:  Grantorino

    From:  BluRay's  (\\SERVER\Videos\Bluray's)

    To:  Temp (C:\Users|Skeleton\Docum...\Temp)

    Time remaining: About 3 Minutes

    Items remaining:  2 (11.5 GB)

    Speed:   65 MB/second

    then it has a progression bar, and under the progression bar it has a fewer details selection button which would collapse some of the details listed above. 

    Hope this paints an accurate picture of what I am seeing.  My Vail server is not on the network at this moment.  Tomorrow I will copy the same file from my Vail server and post the same info as I did above for my WHS v1.  But past experience tells me that the value for speed will say...  Speed:   18 MB/second

    Any thoughts or advise would be much appreciated....

    Thank you,

    Rue

     

    Sunday, September 19, 2010 5:41 AM
  • Guess it isn't just me :)
    Sunday, September 19, 2010 6:43 AM
  • To help simplify this problem, we can take the network variable out of the equation, and just look at disk performance.  Lets say I copy a 22.5 gig file from my shared video folder to an SATA internal hard drive that is not in the storage pool. In WHS v1 this proccess takes about 6 minutes.  Performing the same task in Vail takes nearly 30 minutes.  (Using same hardware)

    I don't understand this.  Why is the disk performance in Vail so much slower than in WHS v1?

    Now, when I transfer the same file over my network, the results are nearly directly proportional to what I'm seeing described above.  That is why I think it is a disk performance issue with respect to the two operating systems rather than a network issue.

     

    Any thoughts...???

    Thank you,

    Rue

    Sunday, September 19, 2010 3:37 PM
  • It may be a difference between customized storage drivers vs. generic drivers. Generic drivers are usually fine, but if you're seeing performance issues and a manufacturer has a custom driver, it's likely that the custom driver will be worth trying at least.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Sunday, September 19, 2010 6:02 PM
    Moderator
  • For what it's worth, I have AHCI eneabled on both systems, and am using NVIDIA's nForce SATA controller driver on both systems.
    Sunday, September 19, 2010 6:52 PM
  • I'm seeing similiar issues with VAIL at the moment.

    When this kit was running WHS1 ( Core i5, 4Gb of Ram, WD 300Gb Raptor and 3x 1TB WD black GTX 260, HP NC380T teamed up in TLB ) I was pretty much the max from a Gigabit connection normally between 90MB/second to 110MB/sec now its down to 20MB/second max I have seen it reach was 38....

    The client i'm using is a intel core i920 with 12Gb of Ram, two raptors in a raid 0 using another NC380T attached to a procurve 1810 8 port managed switch ports are bonded.

    I'm wondering if this is related to TCP AutoTuning and Receive Side Scaling same problem that used to float around on Windows 7.

    Might give it a test later on and see what happens, as I know it's not the configuration on the client end & network end and it was fine on whs1 so its something in Vail. 

    Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:03 AM
  • I'm seeing similiar issues with VAIL at the moment.

    When this kit was running WHS1 ( Core i5, 4Gb of Ram, WD 300Gb Raptor and 3x 1TB WD black GTX 260, HP NC380T teamed up in TLB ) I was pretty much the max from a Gigabit connection normally between 90MB/second to 110MB/sec now its down to 20MB/second max I have seen it reach was 38....

    The client i'm using is a intel core i920 with 12Gb of Ram, two raptors in a raid 0 using another NC380T attached to a procurve 1810 8 port managed switch ports are bonded.

    I'm wondering if this is related to TCP AutoTuning and Receive Side Scaling same problem that used to float around on Windows 7.

    Might give it a test later on and see what happens, as I know it's not the configuration on the client end & network end and it was fine on whs1 so its something in Vail. 


    It can't be purely network related as I am seeing the same issue with copies to and from a local internal hard drive (Sata 300).  Performance on WHS1 is a solid 10x faster than Vail.  Clearly I'm not alone.
    Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:13 AM
  • For me the biggest improvement in speeds was disabling shadow copy on the folders

     

    Three folders for testing one with DE + shadow copies on I would not go over 23MB/s

    Second folder which has DE enabled and shadow copies disable I was able to hit 40MB/s

    Third folder without DE and Shadow copies enabled on it I was able to achieve 90MB/s

    File sizes transferred

    Photo folder with 2000 Jpegs @ 1MB each 

    Second folder contained three ISO files one 4.2GB in size, second 1GB in size and the third 512MB in size

    This was all done with 2x NC380T | Procurve switch | 9k Jumbo frames | auto tuning modifications

    Shadow Copies are a huge hit on the network transfer performance that get worse when DE is enabled on top of it.

    Going to do some more testing on the disks themselves now.

    Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:33 PM
  • Generious:  Look forward to you posting your results.

    I have duplication and shadow copies turned off for everything.  I started transferring 370 gigs worth of dvd rips to my Vail server.  The transfer started around 45-50 MB/s, but soon settled in around 18 MB/s where it stayed until completion 5 hours and 15 minutes later.  The same transfer took 1 hour and 5 minutes when transfering to my WHS v1.

    I have roughly 5 TB of data on my WHS v1 that I would eventually like to transfer to my Vail server, but based on my results described above, it would take in excess of 70 hours to complete.  I think that is way too slow.  It only takes a little over 14 hours to complete the same task on WHS v1.

    Like Tom, I notice the same poor transfer performance when transferring large files from internal SATA 2 hard disks to shared folders in Vail.

    Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:15 AM
  • Wow I would kill for those speeds.  As a test I took a 35.2GB rip and copied it to my music folder which has duplication and shadow copy turned off.

    Windows 7 shows a transfer rate of 11 MB/sec.  This is to a EX495 with WD 2TB green drives, router is D-Link DIR-655 using the factory default configuration.

     I think I can get my speeds higher by adding more memory to my system which will occur next week.

    Currently with this copy occurring the server is sitting between 5 and 11 percent cpu with 1.41GB of memory used out of 2038.

    I will have to wait until my Vail testing is finished to test this under WHS 1.0 but I do know it was much faster because I have copied this fire previously.

    Wednesday, September 22, 2010 2:08 AM
  • Memory didn't help me.  Upgraded to 6GB.  Shadow Copy and Duplication are both off.

    I see it as an inherent flaw in Vail.  I'm clearly not alone. There is something wrong.

    Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:16 AM
  • As I asked previously, have you filed a bug report on Connect?
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:31 PM
    Moderator
  • Just another data point.  I've been using WHS V1 for about 4 months, having purchased an HP Media Server 490.  I have been very pleased with the speeds.  My server is downstairs at the end of approximately 100 foot of high-speed cable (Cat 6).  My router is upstairs next to me desk.  Just did a test transfer of a single 1.36GB zip file.  Took 12-13 seconds to transfer from my computer to the server (Windows copy showed speed between 106 and 94 MB per second).  Same file transferred from server to computer = approx. 13 seconds.  I haven't used Vail, and don't plan to at this point.
    Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:03 AM
  • Just another data point.  I've been using WHS V1 for about 4 months, having purchased an HP Media Server 490.  I have been very pleased with the speeds.  My server is downstairs at the end of approximately 100 foot of high-speed cable (Cat 6).  My router is upstairs next to me desk.  Just did a test transfer of a single 1.36GB zip file.  Took 12-13 seconds to transfer from my computer to the server (Windows copy showed speed between 106 and 94 MB per second).  Same file transferred from server to computer = approx. 13 seconds.  I haven't used Vail, and don't plan to at this point.

    This is why I liked the networking in WHS V1 it just worked fine.

    I haven't been able to get above 90MB/s under VAIL which is annoying now and I'm starting to dump my data onto external disks and rebuilding it back to WHS v1 again.

    or Perhaps I will just rebuild my system with ESX4i instead and run whs1 and vail side by side and leave my data on a QNAP 259 Pro II instead....

    VAIL for me is a big no which the refresh preview build to many annoying little problems in it. 

    Friday, September 24, 2010 9:23 AM
  • Well I decided to rebuild the system as a ESXi4.1 host today and install WHS V1 as a VM on it.

    Gave it 3GB of ram, one proc with two cores, 2.5Tb of storage 2x1TB + 500GB disks all disks are on seperate datastores.(This is 2 less cores compared to when It was installed as VAIL and 1Gb less ram)

    Speeds are below 

    http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5305/whs.png

    My average in VAIL was 78MB/s to around 90

    I'm copying 4TB of data to a duplicated folder at the speeds above without making a slight modification to the WHS host....

    VAIL isn't welcome on my network until this is sorted out

    Friday, September 24, 2010 8:19 PM
  • Are you running a 10Gb network? If you're only running a 1Gb LAN (more likely, as 10Gb cards are extremely expensive at the moment!) then the software seems to be mis-reporting the speeds.

    Your bottom copy process reporting 126MB/s would equate to your network transfer running at just over 1Gb/s, as you'll never reach the 1Gb/s due to network protocol overheads. (Unless you're copying from a local drive and bypassing the network.)

    Are you doing the test fairly, by copying data over the network, or is it all on the local machine?

    I should add that I've been running Vail since the first beta came out, and I've had no problems at all with speed of copying - it's comparable to WHS v1 for me.

    My system is a 3 year old AMD Athlon machine with 2GB RAM, 2 x 250GB SATA II drives on the on-board controller, 1 x 500GB and 3 x 1TB SATA II drives on an Adaptec 4 port SATA PCI card.

    Friday, September 24, 2010 10:06 PM
  • Main PC core i920 with a NC380T Dual port card running windows 7 NICs are teamed up connected to a HP procurve 1810-g switch lacp configured on the ports => ESX4i connected to three ports on the procurve two ports configured using lacp last nic is used for vmkernel, two nics are in vswitch1 for the machine traffic both active / active based.

    The WHS virtual machine has two nics one is dedicated for WHS traffic using a vmxnet 3 configured with 9k jumbo frames, vswitch is configured with a 9000 mtu as well, the second nic is used solely for torrent downloads.

    Three datastores one for the OS disk, one for data and a second for data, and a isci disk for backups presented from my Qnap.

    This copy is all done over the network using jumbo frames, lacp, teamed nics as I said VAIL performance isn't up to scratch.

    Just for you I will create a VAIL VM with a Gig more ram and two more processors and do the same testing again fairly confident it will still not match WHS v1.

     

    Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:55 AM
  • Also I doubt that the software is misreporting the speeds it is comparable to what I'm seeing leave the ESX host under the performance stats and charts.
    Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:59 AM
  • I had the same problem with Vail Beta 1. I was about to install Vail Beta Refresh, but now that I see this hasn't been fixed, no thanks. I had no problems with WHS v1 on this hardware. I even upgraded to 4 x 500GB disks with no throughput enhancement. I see ~300MB/sec (yes, MB) under Windows 7 when the disks are in a RAID array, but when copying large files to the DE array, throughput starts out high and drops to terrible speeds. For the record, no problems with Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard either.

     

    http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en/whsvailbeta/thread/ae943fd8-548a-4c7d-8493-78ab97ad3513

    Sunday, October 3, 2010 4:46 PM
  • Yes Vail is terrible for file transfer I am getting around 20 to 30 MB/s copying a 40 gig blu ray iso over gigabit an I used to get 60 to 80 under whs ver 1.0 I am going back to ver 1.0 until the problems get fixed it means 6 to 8 minutes under whs 1.0 or 20 to 30 minutes under vail
    Saturday, October 9, 2010 1:37 PM
  • Exact same issues here, in WHS v1 was getting stable transfers at 80MBs a second (large B) over the network from a media center PC and a windows 7 desktop through a D-Link DIR 655 router cat5e cables (one of them over 45 feet long) and standard onboard Gigabit NICs. Could easily transfer a 25GB bluray is about 12-15 minutes. Now simple file transfers of even 700mb files or 2GB recorded tv shows take hours.
    Monday, October 11, 2010 4:27 AM
  • Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:12 AM
  • Adding to what has already been discussed:

    I have had the same problems as mentioned here with slow transfer speed. It is not so bad under normal use transferring one file at a time. I still get from 13 to 22 MB/s. At first I thought it was because I was transferring from a usb drive on my client pc, but later I installed windows7 on that PC and transferred in my home network to another client PC and got a transfer speed of 900+ mb/s (110 MB/s) from PC to PC on the same network using the same switches, etc..

    WHS Vail works great every other way, Love the backup, love the Remote services, love the Web page and sharing of files, on and on, but this problem with disk performance is unbearable. I have a friend that set up a server at the same time and bailed out of WHS Vail because of some other problems. He is using an ordinary Win7 box to act as a server and is getting good performance with his RAID drive, media server. There are many other solutions out there for filing systems, like ZFS and some other journaling file systems that perform well in both read and write performance. Microsoft of all companies should be able to come up with something better than Drive Extender, which wastes disk space, or at least they should be able to fix it for better performance. I won't be happy with anything less than 50 to 60 + MB/s write speed on WHS. We shouldn't have to try all these tricks to get WHS vail to exceed 20 MB/s. It should work better than that as installed. I think I'll use WHS Vail as a backup machine and a Web page, but use something else to serve data.

     

    I agree with the others, WHS is fundamentally broken until the Write speed is in the 50 to 60 MB/s range. 

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:35 PM
  • Me Too, it took 20 hours to backup 200 GBs ouch., refresh is bad, logon is slow, and I guess everything is actually slow. When is the next one??????
    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:44 PM
  • My performance wasn't all that great until I updated drivers.  If you are using the native stuff that installed from 2K8, I would recommend installing the chipset/sata drivers, and possibly the proper network card drivers as well, from either your motherboard manufacture, or the direct source.  I just finished my first real set of tests with Vail, and I get 60-70MB/sec on the slow side writing to the server.  There is also that hotfix they recommend you install, not sure if that would impact performance or not, but it mentions things timing out.
    Friday, October 15, 2010 10:32 AM
  • I'm also seeing disk performance slower than what I saw with V1.  I've tried updating drivers, etc.  I now upload around 10-12 MB/s whereas V1 would go around 50-60 MB/sec.  I did install with AHCI enabled rather than IDE so that may be the cause.
    Sunday, October 17, 2010 7:19 AM
  • The first beta was far preferable, and I would get 80% of WHS V1 speeds, it however lost all my data and I thought I would try beta 2. Oh my.

     

    This "refresh" is unusable that it isn't even suitable for testing. It has lost data twice already (good thing I didn't complete transferring my data), it constantly freezes, takes forever to add drives or change access permissions or do anything. It hangs and freezes when doing those things and then it loses data by corrupting the file system on the shares.

     

    Then I was wondering why it transfers data so slowly and I found this thread. I give up, I can't even use this product as a beta, it's too slow and it just fails before its even set up. Blessing in disguise. This thread has me convinced to go back to V1 until they sort out their issues. This sort of regression so late in the game is typical MS and I could bet my life that the release version will be a dog like this. It won't be for 2 years that they really fix it with updates and power packs and the like. I give up.

     

    Should have put some of that $3billion of Kin money into getting some decent resources for this product.

     

     

     

    Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:45 PM
  • The first beta was far preferable, and I would get 80% of WHS V1 speeds, it however lost all my data and I thought I would try beta 2. Oh my.

     

    This "refresh" is unusable that it isn't even suitable for testing. It has lost data twice already (good thing I didn't complete transferring my data), it constantly freezes, takes forever to add drives or change access permissions or do anything. It hangs and freezes when doing those things and then it loses data by corrupting the file system on the shares.

     

    Then I was wondering why it transfers data so slowly and I found this thread. I give up, I can't even use this product as a beta, it's too slow and it just fails before its even set up. Blessing in disguise. This thread has me convinced to go back to V1 until they sort out their issues. This sort of regression so late in the game is typical MS and I could bet my life that the release version will be a dog like this. It won't be for 2 years that they really fix it with updates and power packs and the like. I give up.

     

    Should have put some of that $3billion of Kin money into getting some decent resources for this product.

     

     

     


    Sounds more like hardware issues than software (Vail).
    One WHS v1 machine in the basement with a mixed setup of harddrives in and outside the storage pool. And now, next to it, a Vail Refresh brother for beta duties.
    Sunday, October 17, 2010 9:03 PM
  • Well, there is one wild card here and that is the 2 USB 3.0 external RAID boxes I am using. But even if I solve the stalling and freezing issues I have found it to never transfer data at greater than half the speed of WHS V1. That is the straw that broke the camel's back. It tell you the truth using WHS v1 with those USB 3.0 boxes isn't fun either. They work perfectly on the USB 2.0 ports but have a difficult time on usb 3.0. I might just switch to using eSata/port multiplier. Well actually I've just about had it with MS products frankly and I am thinking about Linux alternatives.

    Monday, October 18, 2010 6:46 AM
  • I just checked my WHS issues and I think the formatting loosing drives issue is tied to the fact that I am using advanced format drives, so off I go to Microcenter to fix that. Perhaps my issue with Vail was just that I wasn't patient enough for changes to complete and take effect. But I noticed even adding a user or adding a share was slow and I know that Vail should handle advanced format drives just fine. I also assume that an external USB 3.0 drive shouldn't mess things up either. But it is a beta and things happen. It tends to ask you to do a check and repair and when you do that your data is FUBAR. Well the release notes state that check and repair doesn't work. So in any case IMHO I don't think its currently even in a state to use as a beta if it cannot even repair folders. I have no problem testing the product and even losing data (I keep a backup) but this version is too poor to even test IMHO. I'm just saying this to save people frustration and hopefully that MS releases another beta that is decent enough to test and find some real bugs.
    Monday, October 18, 2010 8:18 PM
  • I ran a little experiment tonight to explore the slow write speeds I'm getting and saw an interesting result.  I have a WD Green 640 GB drive for my System drive (removed from the storage pool and the partition extended) and 2X 1 TB WD Green Drives for the drive pool.  I have Duplication turned on but not Shadow Copies.

    I logged into the server and copied about 7 GBs of picture files to the System C: drive I was getting write speeds in the 50 - 60 MB/sec range (although it was dropping off slowly the whole time).  If I then copied the same files back to the storage pool into a different directory the write speed was only in the 8-12 MB/sec range.

    Any ideas?  Is this just the hit we all take for duplication or am I missing something?

    Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:33 AM
  • Well, there is one wild card here and that is the 2 USB 3.0 external RAID boxes I am using. But even if I solve the stalling and freezing issues I have found it to never transfer data at greater than half the speed of WHS V1. That is the straw that broke the camel's back. It tell you the truth using WHS v1 with those USB 3.0 boxes isn't fun either. They work perfectly on the USB 2.0 ports but have a difficult time on usb 3.0. I might just switch to using eSata/port multiplier. Well actually I've just about had it with MS products frankly and I am thinking about Linux alternatives.


    Let's add driver issues as well.
    Maybe not all that you are using are fit for Windows Server 2008 (Vails backbone)?
    One WHS v1 machine in the basement with a mixed setup of harddrives in and outside the storage pool. And now, next to it, a Vail Refresh brother for beta duties.
    Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:31 AM
  • When I transfer a 24GB file from a local USB 3.0 external drive to a shared folder (video), it starts at 110MBs per second, but quickly drops to 40MBs per second.  When I copy the same file from the same USB drive to another USB drive on the same client, it copies consistently at 113 MB/s.  It seems to me that something is not right with the connection between the client and the server.  Am I wrong?
    Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:19 PM
  • BTW, I transferred over 3TB of data last night to my server setup with two 2TB EARS WD drives (advanced format drives).  It maintained just about 80MB/sec to whole time.
    Monday, October 25, 2010 2:26 AM
  • I just install Vail on my server that I was using version 1 of WHS on.  I was getting 70-80MB/s data transfers with the first version. With Vail I get 20-30MB/s copying data to it but double copying data from it.  Rather strange that there is a massive difference when writing to it.
    Monday, October 25, 2010 6:20 PM
  • This Ken Warren guy doesn't really know anything about WHSv1 if he is making claims that it cannot support 50-100MB/s file transfers.   Sheesh guy...

     

    Yes WHS is basically limited in read speed by first the gigabit adapters, then the network switch you are using and finally the hard drives themselves.  Writing to duplicated shares is slower but not that much.  Reads certainly will max the disk out. 

    I just loaded WHS v2 Vail on a test system with 2 brand new Samsung f3 hd's that can do 100MB/s in general.  Vail was utterly unusable right away.  I copied 10GB of data to Vail and it started fast and eventually totally choked and at best did around 10MB/s.  Totally worthless.  Keep in mind I loaded NOTHING on vail other than loading it and coping data.

    Sorry to say but Vail is a failure and should be canned.  WHSv1 should be re-coded for Server 2008 and skip the block file storage.  

     

    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:26 AM
  • This Ken Warren guy doesn't really know anything about WHSv1 if he is making claims that it cannot support 50-100MB/s file transfers.   Sheesh guy...
    Not what I said. Please go back and read what I actually wrote...

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 3:20 PM
    Moderator
  • I don't understand why people assume they can load what is essentially Windows 2008 onto a random set of hardware and have it perform optimally.  If you're building one of these systems, you need to take some time and research what drivers/etc are available.  This stuff makes a world of difference, especially if you're using hardware not intended to be used with a server OS in the first place.  I am using a SuperMicro board/SATA controller, with standard low end SATA drives, and it performs as good if not better than my V1 install - given my V1 install is on older hardware/etc, even after copying boat loads of data to it.  There are a lot of other issues with DE, I agree, but I would assume you would see the less than ideal performance levels if you were to try base Windows 2008 R2 install without any additional support drivers for the Chipset/INF and SATA controller as well.
    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:30 PM
  • I'm getting around 11/mbs, too.  I just built the box with AMD 2.9ghz dualcore, Realtek 8201CL PHY Lan chipset, NVIDIA GeForce 6150 / nForce 430 board chipset, 2gigs ram, WD 2T green.

    Used the supplied drivers, but I'll look online to see if there are updated ones.

    The server will stream blu-ray rips which is extremely important.  Transfer speeds are a hassle when initially backing up (200gigs of data (I just let run during the night), but after that I can live with it.

    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:12 PM
  • So what kind of hardware should we be using then?  Based on reading these comments, it sounds like people are running Vail on some fairly modern (dual core, quad core) machines and still getting bad disk performance.  Furthermore, there's a lot of comments here from people who had great disk performance on WHS v1 and bad performance on Vail using the same hardware.  Isn't v1 build on Server 2003?  Is that not a server OS?   I'm not necessarily discarding your theory, I just need a little more info. 
    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:56 AM
  • I am not saying you need to get new hardware, but if you install any Windows OS, especially with hardware that is considerably older than the build of the operating system, and then you simply rely on OEM drivers, you will never get optimal performance, even on the Desktop side.  It being Server 2008, instead of say Windows 7, makes that even more of a problem, as I'm sure Microsoft did not intend people to ever install the server OS components on anything but supported hardware.  That doesn't mean it won't work, but it seems like that should for sure be one of the first things you should look at.  There is a reason that manufactures build drivers specifically for their hardware, even if it works out of box.  That said, it would be interesting if Microsoft has done anything at all to make this cleaner for people using WHS product line, as the hardware people will likely be using on WHS vs Server Standard are completely different a very large majority of the time.  I guess my main point is, I have hardware intended to be used with Server 2008, I have drivers installed specifically for all the hardware in my system, along with the OS that we're using, and it performs better than my WHS v1 setup.  So, my recommendation is not to run a clean install, then come to expect it to be absolutely optimal because it's clean... optimal is optimal, which means proper drivers.  It would be cool to see what Microsoft would say about this though, as I'm just speaking from personal experience building PC's/Servers, obviously not having any direct interaction with the WHS team.

    All that rambling over with... looking for drivers for say a nForce 430 board means some trial and error... it doesn't appear any of the nForce stuff has drivers for Windows 2008 (part of my point), but maybe the Windows 7 64bit package would work?

    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:54 PM
  • Hi - I have experienced odd, mixed results in data transfer speed.  Large DVD ISO files copied at 60MB/s to v1 and 24MB/s to Vail.  But a bunch of small document files are actually faster with Vail - 6MB/s for Vail to around 2MB/s for v1.  I must admit I don't normally copy small files - normally zip and copy such things in bulk - so I was actually shocked at how slow the original WHS copied these.

     

    Friday, November 12, 2010 4:33 PM
  • The problem seems to be with the storage pool. I have checked with recourse monitor and the problem isn’t low performance per say, but that transfer pauses. When it copies it is quick. I also tried to play a video file (on another PC) from a share at the same time as copying from a localy/home server connected disk (not part of pool) to a share on the server. And the playback stops when the copying stops. (And no problem with playback when the copying is going at full speed)

    So the server has no performance problems on its own. While the copying is halting the server is responsive. I can open the console, task manager etc. No problems. I am now going back to HS v1, and I see that copying from the share to the “none storage pool” disk goes without pauses at good speed. 

    Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:02 PM
  • But in my case, I'm running this on an Intel Q6600 with 8GB of RAM.  Surely this is an acceptable configuration -- a quad core with 8GB and I'm still having the problem.  It's still useless.
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:50 AM
  • Processor and RAM have next to nothing to do with disk performance issues, Tom. At best, they execute poorly written drivers (or drivers not optimized for the OS/hardware, if you have e.g. Windows 7 drivers or "in box" drivers from the Vail installation media) a little bit faster.

    Find hardware with solid Windows Server 2008 R2 drivers if you want the best possible chance of excellent performance. Personally, I'm satisfied with 30 MB/s average throughput; it meets my needs. Yes, in theory my hardware could deliver two or three times that with better drivers, etc., but I just don't move enough GB of data on and off my server on a daily basis for it to really matter.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:43 PM
    Moderator
  • I'm not sure I completely buy the driver theory.  If you're talking about something that is rapidly evolving - such as GPU's - then having updated drivers are essential to getting the best performance.  But we're not talking about the latest graphics cards here, we're talking about basic File I/O which is as old as the hills.   I find it a little hard to believe that Windows Server 2008 has radically changed how file I/O happens and therefore requires some "special" chipset that knows how to do it "The New Way".    I could understand if we were talking about transferring files over a firewire port or something, but this is coming in via a NIC.  (again, not much has changed with NIC's  as far as I'm aware...)

    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:10 PM
  • You could be right.. graphics hardware does evolve much quicker than the basics, but I get 80-90MB/sec reads off my DE shares, and cosistant 60-70MB/sec writes, and the only real difference with my setup, is that I not only have a board intended to be used with 2k8 R2, but I installed chipset drivers for 2k8.  I would guess it's more about the fact that there are a ____ of a lot more SATA controllers out there than there are GPU's.  Just look at how many drivers need to be loaded in order for you to be able to attempt a Windows installation.  I did do some more testing, and there does seem to be some difference in performance between disks that have duplication on, and those that don't though.  Maybe it has more to do with how that replication is happening on our machines?  If there is replication happening during a write, that will compound the performance issue.  That wouldn't explain why the level of performance I see is drastically different.  Have you guys been using a Windows 7 client?  How about attempting robocopy or similar instead of Explorer?  Maybe look at how your NIC is negotiating its duplex and flow configuration?  I have a "smart" business class switch, which I have configured to optimize my connectivity.
    Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:01 AM
  • Since the underlying architecture is Windows 7, why would special "server" drivers make much of a difference?  It seems to me that Windows 7x64 drivers should be more than adequate for merely transferring data from one machine to another.  In my case, I'm using a Win7x64 Pro machine to connect to Vail.  These two should treat each other like members of the family and swap information readily.

     

    Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:07 PM
  • It is semi-likely that some Windows 7 x64 drivers would work (I mentioned that with the nForce comment), but you need to manually try in order to tell...

    Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:49 PM
  • The underlying architecture is Windows Server 2008 R2.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:18 AM
    Moderator
  • The underlying architecture is Windows Server 2008 R2.
    Ah, my mistake....this makes much more sense to me, now.  In a previous post, I mentioned how I can stream HD media from the server.  After using Vail for a couple of weeks, now, this was optimistic - the rule seems to be that 11mb/s is not sufficient to stream HD content.  The videos are very

    choppy.  If I play the videos from an external USB 2.0 connected directly to my media computer, they play fine.  

    Thanks for your help.

    Friday, November 19, 2010 12:23 PM
  • It's going to depend a great deal on exactly how your streaming environment is configured. In theory, I think you have enough available bandwidth for at least one 1080p stream using just about any codec, but if you're transcoding on the fly, you will also need a lot of horsepower on your server to handle that. (Lack of CPU power will result in choppy video because the server can't keep up while transcoding.)
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Friday, November 19, 2010 3:19 PM
    Moderator
  • I haven been trying to set-up WHS Vail and to transfer 4TB  of data but my disk performance is terrible as well. Although sometimes it copies with 17-33MB per second, most of the time it copies only with 2-3MB per second. That is why, after two weeks it still copying data. When I try to copy data from one disk to another (non-storage pool disk) it copies usually with 60-70MB per second.

    It does not matter whether directory duplication is turned or not and even if it would matter, then it would be unacceptable that you had to turn it off to reach normal disk performance. I have 2TB and 1.5TB disks attached, via SATA on the motherboard and via Adaptec 1430 cards.

    Is it expected that this will be solved?

    Sunday, November 28, 2010 12:41 PM
  • Is it expected that this will be solved?

    If you count removing the solution entirely then yes.

    See here

    Sunday, November 28, 2010 10:32 PM
  • Adding another data point. I have the HP EX495 + WHS v1. Folder duplication never really slowed me down. It maybe negated about 5 to 10 MB/s transfer speed at most. On non-folder duplication files, my transfer speed is in the high 70's consistently. Even with BitTorrent running on the server with 5 streams running, I still get >30MB/s.

    I purchased the kit to enable keyboard/mouse/VGA/serial for my unit for the sole purpose of upgrading to Vail when it is released some time ago. I was even contemplating upgrading the memory to 4GB to compensate for higher requirements of Vail. However, hearing that both current WHSv2 network transfer speeds are over 4 times slower than my current setup + DE being removed = No Vail upgrade for me.

    There is simply too much anecdotal evidence in this thread by some seemingly intelligent people with good setups & testing capabilities (see Generious & the OP Tom Scales) to ignore. Right now I'm just looking for a stinking way to put an app on my google phone (& related app on the server) so I can access my photo's & music like those great Synology NAS units... sigh.

    Side Note: Insinuating that this isn't an issue by stating the product meets your needs isn't really productive. There is a (big) problem if the hardware is easily capable of attaining X speed but is performing at <1/4 of X.

    Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:00 AM